Growth Bad Impacts – General

Impact – Biodiversity Ext.

(Ben and Rebecca, “Environmental Science and Management”, Centre for Development, Environment and Policy, Section 1.4, http://www.soas.ac.uk/cedep-demos/000_P500_ESM_K3736-Demo/unit1/page_11.htm)//WB

Impact – Disease 2NC

(William, “Public Health and the Anticorporate Movement: Rationale and Recommendations”, American Journal of Public Health, Government, Politics, and Law Peer Reviewed, August 2006, http://people.oregonstate.edu/~flayb/MY%20COURSES/H671%20Advanced%20Theories%20of%20Health%20Behavior%20-%20Fall%202012/Readings/Wiist06%20Corporate%20influences,%20PH%20and%20the%20anticporporate%20movement.pdf)//WB

Karl-Heinz Kerscher 14, Professor, “Space Education”, Wissenschaftliche Studie, 2014, 92 Seiten

Impact – Endocrine 2NC

(Shinsuke, “Temporal trends of brominated flame retardants in coastal waters of Japan and South China: Retrospective monitoring study using archived samples from es-Bank, Ehime University, Japan”, Marine Pollution Bulletin Volume 57, Issues 6–12, 2008, Pages 267–274, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X0800009X)//WB

Impact – Laundry List 2NC

Extinction—laundry list of internal links prove human effects will destroy the earth

Rockstrom, Stockholm University environmental science professor, 2015 (Johan, “Bounding the Planetary Future: Why We Need a Great Transition,” Great Transition Initiative, April 2015, http://www.greattransition.org/images/GTI_publications/Rockstrom-Bounding_the_Planetary_Future.pdf, p. 1-2, IC)

Human societies have for millennia faced severe environmental challenges, some of which have even triggered social and ecological collapse. Such was the fate of Mayan civilization and Mesopotamian irrigation societies, among many others. However, the scale of impact remained local or regional—until now. Over the past fifty years, the evidence has mounted of a massive shift in the magnitude and pace of human pressures on the planet. Although this “Great Acceleration” began in the mid-1950s, over the last twenty-five years, we have started to see the first evidence that critical thresholds of the Earth system are in danger of being crossed (Figure 1).1 Multiple signals sound the alert: the collapse of marine fisheries; accelerated melting of ice sheets, upwelling of warm ocean waters, and methane release from thawing Siberian seabeds; climate volatility and extreme droughts; shifts in ecological regimes in lakes caused by nutrient runoffs from fertilizers and other sources; and the collapse of tropical coral reef systems. Today, we can state with a high degree of confidence that the sheer accumulation of such anthropogenic impacts can disrupt the homeostasis of the Earth system.2

Humanity has become the dominant force of change on Earth, surpassing in importance the geophysical forces that have heretofore shaped the biosphere.3 In this new geological epoch, often called the Anthropocene, a profound new risk can be added to the conventional concerns of dwindling resources and local pollution: human action could push the Earth system to abrupt and irreversible shifts of the planetary ecosphere. The repercussions could prove calamitous at local, regional, and global levels.

As a result, if humanity continues on its current trajectory, it will likely be unable to meet the needs of a world population that is expected to reach at least nine billion by 2050.5 As human biophysical pressures rise, threatening the stability of the planet, our understanding of development must transcend the current paradigm. We must urgently address the twin challenges of shrinking the human footprint and equitably sharing the limited resources and ecological space of Earth.

Impact – Laundry List Ext.

There is no scenario where growth wins, competition hurts relation, energy security harms the environment, expansion leads to income inequality, and only a focus on sustain-based politics can solve

Meltzer, Steven, and Langley, professor at the Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies, associate Director at CIC, where he works on development policy and the post-2015 agenda, rector of Policy and Research at Climate Advisers, February 2013

(Joshua, David, Claire, THE UNITED STATES AFTER THE GREAT RECESSION: THE CHALLENGE OF SUSTAINABLE GROWTH , pg 23-24, http://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=317112116088088090095116120006096004053017063051087026113098068127097026102127074024053029061030029060000114120126115023013073053061042009079098019126123071020069100059050000007072080068080107022104065079030097089011105065126124074091116029111017081&EXT=pdf&TYPE=2 )

American policymakers therefore face a paradox. On the one hand, the need for—and perhaps also the demand for—a new growth model is strong. On the other hand, the obstacles to its creation are daunting. Although predicting the future is an invidious task, especially when levels of global uncertainty are so high and American politics is so finely divided, we see four broad scenarios that could result from the interplay of these contrasting forces. • Scenario 1: Muddle Through. This scenario sees a continuation of business-as-usual, with a slight rebalancing of growth from the richest Americans to the middle classes, as a result of a combination of recovery, growth in high-value exports and an increase in income taxes for higher earners. A period of high energy prices stimulates significant gains in energy efficiency, but also sees the United States emerge as a major producer of unconventional oil as well as unconventional gas. This increases American energy security, but carbon emissions are only reduced slowly, as cheaper energy prices stimulate demand and reduce the competitiveness of renewables. Pressure is placed on China and India to discover and develop their own unconventional carbon reserves, with an inevitable impact on climate trajectories. Policymakers increasingly focus on adaptation to climate impacts and on geo-engineering as a potential route to reducing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.171 Internationally, levels of trust and cooperation between major powers is low, while a growing number of countries face powerful protest movements from both ends of the political spectrum. • Scenario 2: Going for Growth. This scenario builds on scenario 1 but assumes a singular focus on growing the economy. Unconventional oil and shale gas are rapidly exploited and often exported, with lower energy prices boosting the economy. Domestic coal demand continues to fall, but low-cost coal is sold aggressively to emerging markets. Consumption remains a key driver of economic growth, which is rapid but unevenly distributed, with some metropolitan areas prospering and others experiencing a steep decline in their wealth and population. The labor market performs strongly, but it does not generate the jobs needed to reduce income inequality. Economic mobility also remains low, but, on the whole, urban voters continue to support “growth first” politics. American greenhouse gas emissions fall, but only slowly, while its coal exports boost emissions in other countries. Declining federal government support for renewable energy means that gas does not become a bridging fuel to zero-carbon energy sources. American resilience to risk is strengthened by an improved fiscal position, but increased resources— diplomatic, military and economic—are used to react to, rather than manage, crises, both overseas and at home. America leads still, but in a highly competitive and often fractious world. • Scenario 3: Intelligent Design. This scenario is also consistent with strong levels of economic growth but includes a more deliberate attempt to reinforce positive trends, restrain negative ones and increase American resilience to a range of risks. Successive presidents focus on employment through renewed public investment in education and training, additional support for sectors with high export potential, and innovative approaches to regulation, especially in the financial sector. The Federal Reserve places greater emphasis on its mandate to maximize employment, alongside its current focus on interest rates and price stability.172 In the energy sector, the government takes a strategic approach to maximizing the country’s new opportunities, with policies to maximize the potential of gas to reduce emissions (e.g., use in transportation) and some contribution from the energy sector to fiscal consolidation (through reduced fossil fuel subsidies and an increased use of taxation or market instruments).173 None of these measures are especially dramatic, but taken together they have a measurable impact on sustainability and allow the United States to provide somewhat increased levels of leadership internationally. As a result, geopolitical outcomes are more cooperative, with some innovations in global governance, even though important stresses remain unaddressed.174 • Scenario 4: Emergency Response. Policy is driven in unpredictable directions by a series of shocks, such as a further breakdown in global financial systems, serious conflict or state failure, or a series of extreme weather events or clear evidence of disruptive climate change. In response to one or more of these shocks, the United States becomes a highly directive actor as it mobilizes what it perceives to be an urgent threat to its security. At a global level, net economic impact is negative, possibly strongly so, as growth slows in a number of countries. The impact on sustainability is hard to predict. It is most likely to be positive if an environmental shock triggers the crisis, although even then outcomes will be highly dependent on the timing of the event and the extent to which appropriate technologies are primed for rapid diffusion. The impact on geopolitics will also be mixed, especially if the world divides into victims and villains (with the United States on either side) and if coercive measures (e.g., trade sanctions) are used to deliver change. This scenario becomes an increasingly likely successor to the previous scenarios, assuming that patterns of growth take the world further outside the “safe operating space for humanity.

Impact – Pollination 2NC

The loss of species is a horrible event that could lead to a collapse of the environment and extinction- pollinators are uniquely key

Gates, Trauger and Czech 14- Professor of Wildlife Ecology, professor in natural resources management, PHD

(J. Edward, David L., and Brian, Peak Oil, “Envisioning an Alternative Future”, Economic Growth, and Wildlife Conservation, Chapter 15, p.317, 21 Nov 2014 http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4939-1954-3_15)//WB

Not only are extinctions irreversible, but they also are posing a serious threat to human health and well-being. A great analogy is to think of species as rivets in an airplane and humans as its passengers [43, 66]. For simplicity, let us ignore where we are going, who is piloting our airplane, or the appearance of new rivets; although, each of which has philosophical implications. The airplane can lose rivets up to a point, without sacrificing its integrity. However, at some point, the removal of a critical rivet will cause it to suddenly crash. It is impossible to say how many rivets can be lost, but if all loses are in a critical area of the plane, it may not take too many. As an example, the lost of one keystone species on which numerous other species are dependent could cause a trophic cascade, resulting in the extinctions of numerous species and compromising the functioning of the entire ecosystem [64]. Many species also provide critical ecosystem services, such as processing wastes and recycling nutrients, at no cost to us. Other species aid in the control of pest species in agriculture and forestry, reducing the use of insecticides and treatment costs to society. Different species of bees, flies, butterflies, birds, and bats are important plant pollinators worldwide. In fact, bees pollinate 71 of the 100 crops that provide 90% of human food. The estimated value of these crops is about US$ 200 billion annually [71]. Domestic honey bees (Apis mellifera) are critical pollinators in the USA. Their monetary value as commercial pollinators is estimated to be about US$ 15– 17 billion annually [37, 71]. For some high-value crops, in the absence of pollinators it might be cost-effective to pollinate them by hand. For example, in parts of China, the decline of native bees from overuse of pesticides and lack of natural bee habitats has forced farmers to pollinate apple and pear trees by hand (https://www. chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/5193, accessed 11 October 2013). However, there are not enough humans in the world to pollinate all of our crops by hand. Without bees, we would be forced to survive on a few wind-pollinated crops, such as wheat, barley, and corn. Picture supermarkets without almonds, apples, avocados, blackberries, blueberries, cantaloupes, cherries, cranberries, cucumbers, grapefruits, onions, oranges, peaches, pears, plums, pumpkins, raspberries, watermelons, and much more. We sometimes hear people ask, “What is the importance of this species or that species?” What they mean to say is, “What is its importance to humans?” We can certainly develop long lists of species and describe how they benefit or harm humans (if known); but, this exercise does not consider the importance of our listed species to other species, besides humans; or, that their ecological relationships may not have been studied; or, that most species on Earth are unknown to science, about 86% of the earth’s species [55]! Each species found on Earth is the result of many millions of years of evolution, is important in its own right, and is interwoven coevolutionarily with other species in a complex fabric of life that if torn or shredded could endanger our very own existence

Impact – Poverty 2NC

Economic growth exacerbates poverty

Nation Multimedia Group 13- uses National Statistical Coordination Board data

(“Economic growth masks poverty”, 5/4/13, http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Economic-growth-masks-poverty-30205224.html)//WB

Three years ago Philippine President Benigno Aquino III ran with the battle cry "Kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap" (If there is no corruption, there will be no poverty). It served as the cornerstone of his "Straight Path" platform. Halfway into his term, the president has achieved much, including the stellar economic growth that has earned the country an investment-grade credit status from Fitch Ratings. This is why the disclosure last week by the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) that the incidence of poverty has remained unchanged for the past six years was a big embarrassment to the administration. Many believe this was the reason Economic Planning Secretary Arsenio Balisacan, who heads the NSCB, was bumped off the official delegation that flew with the president to Brunei last Wednesday for the Asean Summit. The NSCB report said poverty incidence for the first half of 2012 was 27.9 per cent. Comparing this with the 2006 and 2009 first-semester figures of 28.8 per cent and 28.6 per cent, respectively, it said poverty remained unchanged as the computed differences were not statistically significant. The NSCB noted that in terms of income distribution, 20 per cent of the population (or the poorest segment) accounted for only 6 per cent of the total national income, while the upper 20 per cent accounted for nearly 50 per cent. All efforts to address poverty will be for naught if the government continues to neglect agriculture. In a paper written in November 2008, Balisacan presented facts that remain true to this day: despite the relatively rapid pace of urbanisation in the past 20 years, poverty in the Philippines is still largely a rural phenomenon. Two of every three poor persons are in rural areas and mostly dependent on agricultural employment and incomes. Poverty incidence in agricultural households is roughly thrice that in the rest of the population. While agriculture's share in the total labour force has dropped from about half in the late 1980s to only a little more than a third by the mid-2000s, the sector continues to account for about 60 per cent of total poverty. Last week, Balisacan was reported as saying that the visible underemployment in agriculture was a persistent problem that always came up in labour survey results. "This means that agriculture sector workers work less than 40 hours a week, perhaps because there isn't much demand for labour in their areas, and they are looking for additional work, possibly because the wages they receive are not enough to meet their needs. If the problem of visible underemployment in agriculture is addressed, then incomes of farmers would increase, poverty incidence would decrease, and we would not be compromising food security," he said. The government should convince the private sector to invest in agriculture. It can start with the coconut industry, where, according to National Anti-Poverty Commission chief Joel Rocamora, the 70-billion peso (US$1.7 billion) coconut levy fund is available to spur farmers' production. Also, the government can improve the agriculture sector by simply coordinating with Agriculture Secretary Proceso Alcala, who has a number of programmes and projects that need only official support to get implemented. At a recent roundtable with the Inquirer's business section, Alcala cited a quedan system that allows coconut farmers to take part in value-added production from coco sugar to coco biodiesel through cooperative- and joint-venture-type arrangements, and the expansion of the programme under which farmers may borrow funds using an ATM card, to cover the top 20 rice-producing areas nationwide. In the next three years, the Aquino administration hopes to cut poverty incidence to 16.6 per cent, or half the 1991 rate of 33.1 per cent. It had better start aggressively addressing the issues stunting agriculture, otherwise, it will have no option but to again lower the poverty threshold income (or the minimum amount required to meet basic food and non-food needs) to meet its goal, as it did in 2011 when the threshold was lowered from the previous 52 to 46 pesos for every Filipino per day. Yes, this can cut the official number of poor people, but this is not what we need. We need the government to implement programmes and policies that will attack the root causes of poverty.

Poverty outweighs nuke war

Abu-Jamal 1998 (Mumia, Peace Activist, “A Quiet and Deadly Violence,” FLASHPOINTS, September 19, 1998, available online at http://www.flashpoints.net/mQuietDeadlyViolence.html, accessed 6/30/07)
This form of violence, not covered by any of the majoritarian, corporate, ruling-class protected media, is invisible to us and because of its invisibility, all the more insidious. How dangerous is it--really? Gilligan notes: [E]very fifteen years, on the average, as many people die because of relative poverty as would be killed in a nuclear war that caused 232 million deaths; and every single year, two to three times as many people die from poverty throughout the world as were killed by the Nazi genocide of the Jews over a six-year period. This is, in effect, the equivalent of an ongoing, unending, in fact accelerating, thermonuclear war, or genocide on the weak and poor every year of every decade, throughout the world. [Gilligan, p. 196] Worse still, in a thoroughly capitalist society, much of that violence became internalized, turned back on the Self, because, in a society based on the priority of wealth, those who own nothing are taught to loathe themselves, as if something is inherently wrong with themselves, instead of the social order that promotes this self-loathing.. This vicious, circular, and invisible violence, unacknowledged by the corporate media, uncriticized in substandard educational systems, and un-understood by the very folks who suffer in its grips, feeds on the spectacular and more common forms of violence that the system makes damn sure -that we can recognize and must react to it. This fatal and systematic violence may be called The War on the Poor.

Impact – Warming 2NC

Growth causes a laundry list of impacts [climate change, biodiversity loss, soil erosion, disruption of nitrogen and phosphorous cycles] and extinction—reject technological optimism, only cultural shift can solve

Althouse, Masters in economics, 2015 (Jeffrey, with advisors Carloes Young, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro economics associate professor, Dany Lang, University of Paris 13 associate professor, and Eckhard Hein, Berlin School of Economics and Law professor, “Post-Keynesian Ecological Economics: Towards Greener Pastures,” EPOG Master’s Thesis, defended 6/23/15, p. 4-6, IC)
With the publication of the last UN International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, it has become painstakingly clear that human activity has caused an unprecedented amount of change to the Earth’s natural processes, yielding significant impacts on both current and future generations (IPCC 2014). Both the pace of global warming due to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and the extent of its effects appear to have been vastly underestimated. Conservative estimates now put likely warming scenarios at between 3.7 and 4.5 °C this century, far beyond the supposedly “manageable” 2 °C warming limit set by international experts. Additional stress augurs poorly for already strained ecological systems, as well as economic growth and social stability. As the IPCC report states, “…climate­-change impacts are projected to slow down economic growth, make poverty reduction more difficult, further erode food security, and prolong existing and create new poverty traps, the latter particularly in urban areas and emerging hotspots of hunger.” (IPCC 2014, p. 20) Climate change, however, is just one of many biophysical limits that are being pushed or surpassed at this time – ranging from biodiversity loss to soil erosion to disruption of nitrogen and phosphorous cycles ­ and the future costs of accruing such ecological debts are likely to rise as global leaders fail to make serious commitments to stay within planetary boundaries (Rockström et al. 2009). As the world’s population continues to grow, along with an ever­-expanding middle class, the availability of both renewable and non­renewable resources are likely to face a number threats that will ripple through the economy. However, despite the overwhelming evidence of natural limits to continued economic growth, economics has been slow to shed old orthodoxies which overlook economic dependence on the natural world. Both the landmark “Limits to Growth” (Meadows et al. 1972) publication by the Club of Rome and further research by Nicholas Georgescu-­Roegen (1970; 1971; 1976) over the limits continued growth, given finite material inputs and increasing energy needs to transform such resources, began a flurry of controversy and responses by the economic mainstream in the early 1970’s. Neoclassically trained economists, believing in perfect rationality, and perfect substitutability of natural inputs “adopted mathematical models of optimising behavior, assuming micro­economic axioms, regarding humans as self­-interested utility maximisers, pricing externalities and conducting trade­offs” (Spash & Ryan 2010, p. 2). Their unflinching optimism in price signals to bring about technological change allow even the most catastrophic environmental disasters to be easily overcome. Even modern ecological economics has largely been complicit in merely appropriating neoclassical and mainstream models of production with moderate alterations to include externalities, bringing about only negligibly different results rather than drastic ideological, behavioral, or political change (Spash 2012, Holt 2005). While they have been slow to pick up the mantle on this subject (Mearman 2009), a growing number of heterodox economists are beginning to set their sights on ecological issues and work across disciplines to bring new perspectives and a more realistic analysis to an old debate that needed reviving (Berg et al. 2015, Foley & Taylor 2014, Victor and Jackson 2014). Post­Keynesians have been especially active in this field, bringing traditionally mico­-based insights from environmental science into a decidedly “macro” framework (Rezai et al. 2012). The foundations of the post­Keynesian paradigm ­ historical time, fundamental uncertainty, and effective demand ­ figure prominently in what is now being called “ecological macroeconomics” This paper provides a brief overview of post­Keynesian ecological economics and the intuitions gleaned from it this far. It is found that while the post­Keynesian lens has proven fruitful to better understand some ecological issues, much more must be done to understand the role that the drivers of growth play in finding a sustainable growth path. Increasing efficiency and productivity growth alone are likely insufficient ­ and in some cases may even be counterproductive­ to achieve the drastic dematerialization of production needed to avoid catastrophic human and environmental damage from climate change. The uncertainty involved in predicting future climate scenarios, and human adaptability to them, should act as a catalyst for more radical solutions, rather than doubling down on technological optimism. A truly sustainable economic path will require a decrease in energy­ and material-­intensive production, as well as a counterbalancing increase in socially beneficial services with low environmental impact. Achieving this in the limited time available will require a significant cultural shift towards sufficiency, rather than efficiency, a more equal distribution of wealth, and government policies that focus less on growth and more on well­being. Going forward, post­Keynesian economists will need to adopt a coherent definition of sustainability founded in the fundamentals of uncertainty, irreversible time and the double-­edged sword of effective demand in a finite world (Berr 2009). While certainly a subject to be debated, such issues beg for a complementary normative theory of social progress to better understand how to ensure inter­ and intra­ generational well­being and advance the shift of values away from growth-­centric dogma. Well­being for current and future generations, without compromising natural processes or access to them, must hold primacy over growth.
Warming is real, human caused, and causes extinction—acting now is key to avoid catastrophic collapse

Dr. David McCoy et al., MD, Centre for International Health and Development, University College London, “Climate Change and Human Survival,” BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL v. 348, 4—2—14, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g2510, accessed 8-31-14.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has just published its report on the impacts of global warming. Building on its recent update of the physical science of global warming [1], the IPCC’s new report should leave the world in no doubt about the scale and immediacy of the threat to human survival, health, and well-being. The IPCC has already concluded that it is “virtually certain that human influence has warmed the global climate system” and that it is “extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010” is anthropogenic [1]. Its new report outlines the future threats of further global warming: increased scarcity of food and fresh water; extreme weather events; rise in sea level; loss of biodiversity; areas becoming uninhabitable; and mass human migration, conflict and violence. Leaked drafts talk of hundreds of millions displaced in a little over 80 years. This month, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) added its voice: “the well being of people of all nations [is] at risk.” [2] Such comments reaffirm the conclusions of the Lancet/UCL Commission: that climate change is “the greatest threat to human health of the 21st century.” [3] The changes seen so far—massive arctic ice loss and extreme weather events, for example—have resulted from an estimated average temperature rise of 0.89°C since 1901. Further changes will depend on how much we continue to heat the planet. The release of just another 275 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide would probably commit us to a temperature rise of at least 2°C—an amount that could be emitted in less than eight years. [4] “Business as usual” will increase carbon dioxide concentrations from the current level of 400 parts per million (ppm), which is a 40% increase from 280 ppm 150 years ago, to 936 ppm by 2100, with a 50:50 chance that this will deliver global mean temperature rises of more than 4°C. It is now widely understood that such a rise is “incompatible with an organised global community.” [5]. The IPCC warns of “tipping points” in the Earth’s system, which, if crossed, could lead to a catastrophic collapse of interlinked human and natural systems. The AAAS concludes that there is now a “real chance of abrupt, unpredictable and potentially irreversible changes with highly damaging impacts on people around the globe.” [2] And this week a report from the World Meteorological Office (WMO) confirmed that extreme weather events are accelerating. WMO secretary general Michel Jarraud said, “There is no standstill in global warming . . . The laws of physics are non-negotiable.” [6]

A2 “Growth Good – Enviro”

Growth requires more raw materials—that destroys the environment

Maxton, Club of Rome secretary general, 2015 (Graeme, “Economic growth doesn’t create jobs, it destroys them,” The Guardian, 4/21/15, http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/apr/21/jobs-economic-growth-inequality-environment-club-of-rome, IC)

3. Boosting growth is not the way to solve environmental problems

Economic growth is the cause of them. It requires a constant increase in the flow of raw materials extracted from the planet to be turned into goods, services and waste. The more we grow, certainly using current economic thinking, the more resources we need to use and the more pollution we create. 

Rather then pursuing economic growth then, we should tackle our problems head on. We should develop policies to ensure that everyone has enough money to live on, because it leads to healthier and more stable societies. We should plan to reduce the gap between rich and poor, and we need to stop prevaricating when it comes to the environment and actually do something.

A2 “Growth Good – Inequality”

Growth doesn’t solve inequality—empirically proven. Tech exacerbates the problem

Maxton, Club of Rome secretary general, 2015 (Graeme, “Economic growth doesn’t create jobs, it destroys them,” The Guardian, 4/21/15, http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/apr/21/jobs-economic-growth-inequality-environment-club-of-rome, IC)

Because the system is designed to reward those who already have money and assets, the free market economic model takes wealth from the poor and gives it to the rich. This is especially true since 2008 as government and consumer debts in the rich world have risen and average incomes have stagnated or fallen. The gap between the rich and poor is bigger today than in 1914. The gap between rich countries and poor ones is also much greater.

The coming wave of new technology will make these problems worse. A study on the future of employment at Oxford University predicts that almost half of all jobs are at threat from robotisation in the next 20 years. Many of these are highly skilled jobs, such as those done by pilots, doctors, accountants and lawyers. The jobs that will be left are those that require a great deal of personal attention or artistic input – in other words, those that are generally poorly paid.

Directory: file -> view
view -> Western Europe after wwii
view -> Author study: paul fleischman
view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide
view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg
view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh
view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce
view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy
view -> Table of Contents Lesson #
view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad

Download 0.81 Mb.

Share with your friends: